Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Agcm 220
Similar to Agcm 220 (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Agcm 220
- 1. Genetically Modified Livestock By: Taylor Robinson
- 2. The Controversy More prevalent than ever Yields Increased nutritional value Side effects Lack of research Increased use of GM crops Higher yields needed for future
- 3. Proponents for GM Livestock Population at 9.3 billion by 2050 GMO provide higher yields Faster growth Increased nutritional value GM livestock success stories
- 4. Organic Proponents GM is Unnatural GM is Unsafe Lack of long term studies Unpredictable side effects Organic is historically successful
- 5. Conclusion GMO proponents Necessary for future production Improved nutritional value Organic proponents Long term research necessary Possible negative side effects Long term controversial future Important to agriculture industry
Editor's Notes
- Beef, it's what's for dinner. Or, is it genetically modified beef? Well, in a few years it could be.
- The controversy over genetically modifying animals for human consumption has become more prevalent today than ever before. As the use of genetically modified crops continues to grow many believe that genetically modified animals should as well. The majority of the controversy revolves around food yields, nutrition, potentially harmful side effects, and the lack of any long term research. As the population of earth continually increases many wonder how enough food will be produced to feed what is projected to be a population of well over 9 billion by 2050, 2.5 billion more people than we have currently. Because of this, many believe that genetically modified animals are essential to the future of humanity. They also believe that genetically modified organisms can provide us with not only higher yields, but healthier food alternatives as well. Although, there are also many in the opposition to this viewpoint. These people oppose GM animals in fear of dangerous side effects that haven't been discovered yet and because their long term affects on humans hasn't been studied thoroughly. Throughout this presentation you will learn more about these opposing viewpoints and get a deeper understanding of the reasonings behind each. As well as where the future of where this controversy is going.
- Those who support genetic modification have multiple reasons behind their opinions; however, I would like to focus on the two that came up most often after research and speaking with multiple stakeholders on the issue. These issues include the need for higher yields and the ability for more nutritional products. As stated earlier, according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the population of earth is projected to be 9.3 billion by the year 2050. And according to Alex Brohammer, a senior at the U of I, "It's simply impossible to feed that many people using organic foods." Genetically modified foods provide higher yields and grow faster than organic ones. In fact, according to The New York Times, GM salmon may be the first GMO to win approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and be introduced to the American market. These GM salmon grow at twice the rate and provide much larger higher yields when compared to regular salmon. Because of successes like this, those who support the use of genetic modification agree that to feed the ever increasing population, genetically modified animals is completely necessary. They agree that genetic modification can provide us with more than higher yields and turnover time, but the product with also be healthier for consumers. Proponents of genetically modified animals believe that the science can provide us with an increase in the nutritional value of the meats we consume. In fact, multiple animals have already been successfully genetically modified to provide nutritional values that they wouldn't have been able to through organic practices. According to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, a group of genetically modified pigs have been successfully produced which produce their own omega-3 fatty acids, which have been linked to lowering heart disease. Successes like this, among others, provide GM proponents with an increased sense of comfort in their opinion and would like to see experiment like this conducted on many other types of meats.
- Many people are afraid of products like the omega-3 pig however. They believe that genetically modifying food is unnatural and unsafe until the long term effects have been studied. According to AwnerZangoul, a campaign worker for the Organic Consumers Association, Toying with genetics is definitely something that shouldn't be taken lightly and I'm not sure that in all cases it's being done lightly. It's something that the long term consequences have not been examined properly and our organization does not feel that the long term consequences are being taken into effect." " This group believes that because GM animals are still so new that scientists haven't had the ability to fully test and study their long term affects on humans. They also don't fully trust that the science behind GM is safe enough.According to Schubert, "You can successfully place a gene from one organism to another. However, you will also get other affects that you couldn't have predicted from the original assumptions. You will have also produced changes in the cell or the organism as a whole that are unpredictable." Opponents of GM animals fear that a potentially harmful GM product could possibly go on the market and physically injure humans. Advocates of organic foods believe that organic foods can provide us with everything that we need out of them because they have been for thousands of years. They feel that by GM animals scientists are tampering with things that don't need to be tampered with, and because of this, there will be negative consequences.
- In conclusion, proponents of GMO's believe that to feed the future population genetically modified animals will be completely necessary because of their higher yields and improved nutritional value. While proponents of organics feel that the long term effects haven't been studied enough and that the chances of negative side effects is too high. Overall, this issue is one that will not be resolved in the near future. It is one that will continue to be argued as the science and global dynamics change over time. Proponents of both sides will continue to push the issue and express their beliefs and reasoning's as best they can. It's also important that this issue is kept at the forefront of the agriculture industry because it is one that could potentially have a great impact on the way the industry functions and is seen in they eyes of society. Thank you!